It seems we've witnessed the birth of a new descriptive tool by the judges: The "Glittering Generality"
Besides being fun to say, it's a concise way of giving a critique. I think we should define/discuss this term and others like it that pop up in the critiques time and again, and add them to our collective lexicon. Got any other humorous or useful terms that have come up this year or in years previous (other than SAK/SIAC and the like)?
Feel free to make humorous glittering generalizations of your own!
EDIT: Also, if anyone can clearly define "gonzo" for me, I'd be much obliged (noob alert!). I've gotten the inkling that it means something akin to "goofy." I can only assume it's related to the Muppet character.
Since my entry apparently contained a fair share of these, I'm listening with rapt attention.
Oh, google helped!
Gonzo: Crazy, madcap, unwieldy, or anarchistic.
Now I'm assuming that the blue Gonzo we all know and love was named after the word, instead of the other way around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gonzo: See Clinton Boomer.
Gonzo is goofy, yes, but in a very expansive way. Sometimes overkill can be magnificent.
Glittering generalities... The way I read this is that it is text that contains a lot of the right words, just without specifics to focus the piece.
Gonzo is goofy, yes, but in a very expansive way. Sometimes overkill can be magnificent.
I think of Johnny Depp as Hunter S Thompson, the father of Gonzo Journalism: "Gonzo journalism tends to favor style over fact to achieve accuracy" (whatever that means). According to various sources, Thompson was the first person to use the word.
Glittering generalities... The way I read this is that it is text that contains a lot of the right words, just without specifics to focus the piece.
I'm unsure to its meaning, but this made me think of "a lot of the right words, but not necessarily in the right order" (to misquote Eric Morecambe).
"Glittering generalities" is a term which often comes up in politics. Basically, it's how a politician speaks, making lots of broad promises in very generalized terms and catch-phrases, all of which sound good and get their constituency stirred up. But, when it comes to having an actual detailed plan with substance behind it, you eventually realize there isn't one. Nevertheless, because the best politicians speak so well in "glittering generalities," they often win people over anyway. That's because those listening to them want to believe in what they're saying. The "glittering" nature of the words are enough to draw them in. And then, they assign their own meaning (rightly or wrongly) to the "glittinerg generalities," according to what they each individually hope the words mean.
Applied in a literary context, "glittering generalities" are much the same. It's when you say a lot about nothing...or leave a lot of unfilled blanks behind the terms you're using. A flashy name, or title, or concept gets introduced, but there's little or nothing behind it. Instead, the writer only talks in broad concepts and kind of strings you along. In the absence of any substance behind those words, the reader mentally supplies what they hope (or believe) they mean. The only problem is those mental substitutions and add-on's might be completely wrong...something which the author never intended. And then you've led them astray...or left them hanging.
So, when you're writing, you want to be conscious of the words you're using and whether you're doing a subject justice vs. putting up a smokescreen of nebulous stuff that leads the reader nowhere meaningful. Sometimes, you have to step away from your work for a few days to gain a new perspective on it. Later, when you come back to it, some term, or phrase, or name, or whatever will leap back out at you and you'll realize you never really explained it very well. Instead, you mentally supplied what you meant for it to say. But, an uniformed reader with less insight into your creation than you, would totally miss what you're trying to convey...or, worse, they'd misinterpret it entirely, because they assigned their own meaning to it and it's not what you intended.
In a short timeframe like RPG Superstar's round-by-round assignments, you don't usually have time to set aside your work for awhile and come back to it with a fresh perspective to pick up on things like that. It's often better to simply give your work to a friend, editor, or proofreader and ask them to review it. If they come back to you and say, "It's pretty good, but I totally don't know what you mean by X..." it might be because you're talking in "glittering generalities" and left too many undefined things in your writeup. Sometimes, however, they come back and say something like that, but it's because they're not part of the usual audience for RPG material. And, the terms they're unfamiliar with are things you know your intended audience will easily understand. Those things, you can allow. The others, you can't.
And therein lies the mark of a quality RPG designer and writer, I think. Always know your audience. The RPG community is very savvy and well-read. If you leave them hanging on something, they'll call you on it. So, you want to identify as many of the "glittering generalities" as you can. Then, either expound upon them enough that they're properly defined. Or, discard them and find a different way to say what you actually mean. In the end, your writing will be stronger for it.
My two cents,
--Neil
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
Gonzo is when you take that cool, creative idea and go WAY OVER THE TOP with it.
My core idea is about Salamanders (animal, not monster)
But wait, the Salamanders are Dire and awakened by NE Druids. (not quite over the top, but not superstar either, gotta do something to make them superstar)
"And Then," they can shoot lasers out of their eyes. (Woah! That's a bit over the top, and still not really super star).
"And Then," they burrow under the streets of all the cities in Golarian just waiting to shoot all the world's leaders in the nose with their laser beams so that the NE Druids can turn everything into a forest." (Way OVER THE TOP!)
I sometimes call Gonzo the "And Then" syndrome. (Hear that in the drive-thru voice from "Dude where's my car")
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apart from a few template issues, the salamanders get my vote.
But still awesome. I would prefer laser noses, though.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
But still awesome. I would prefer laser noses, though.
Yeah, laser noses are moderately more cool than laser eyes, because we all know laser eyes have been way overdone. However I didn't want to be repetitious with the word nose, and the best way to kill all the leaders of the world is of course by shooting them in the nose (you know, to also disable their nose lasers).
Thompson was a gun nut, so a gonzo item would probably be a gunslinger thing.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
I'd like to point out that glittering generalities can also be good things to have, when you're trying to establish ambiguity. But you have to be aware of them and do them on purpose.
I'd go on to say that these are ONLY good when it makes the "pitch" stronger.
These are essentially organization pitches. The strength of the pitch is almost always, What, When, Where, How, and Why.
Not, Well maybe or Dunno.
It is hard to catch a reader's interest with ambiguity when you only have approximately 1400 words.
If you are writing a novel, ambiguity works, because you can capture their attention with fancy words and action, and then fill in the blanks as the story progresses.
With this sort of thing, you want the GM to feel intrigued and inspired to use the organization in his/her campaign. If they aren't inspired, then the organization is a failure. And it is often ambiguity that doesn't allow for that inspiration to happen.
Hard facts my friend, hard facts.
I like restoring things to greatness and restoring honor and stuff. I'll vote for anybody who says they'll restore some lost bit of awesome to our degenerate country.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Champion Voter Season 6, Champion Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8, Champion Voter Season 9
|
I like restoring things to greatness and restoring honor and stuff. I'll vote for anybody who says they'll restore some lost bit of awesome to our degenerate country.
I agree, the economy here in Bratislava has really gone downhill. A few years ago you could start your own hotel for 5 cents. Now the price is up to almost a quarter!
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hard facts my friend, hard facts.Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this fragment.
I’m currently working on an open design project (Journey’s to the West) with Christina Stiles.
One of the things I’m quickly learning with presenting an idea to the public (or in my case to other patrons of the project), is that you have to lead with your hook or catch with the name and first sentence of your pitch. You want them to get hooked on your item before you get to the beefy stuff.Then you gotta lay it out for them. As an observer, or voter, how would you feel if you were investing time and energy (and money if you are a patron of an open design project—or I suppose if you are planning to purchase the penultimate adventure module of this competition) into something, and then you got a designer who gives back a bunch of “I dunno’s”. Would you vote for that? Those “I dunno’s” aren’t very inspiring. It comes across as though as a writer and designer, you haven’t made those decisions yet. That you, yourself don’t know what you want to write.
So you gotta make those decisions, and write based on those decisions.
I made this mistake as well. I thought if I give others enough places to put their own spin that it would appeal to more people. I was wrong. I think it is a common mistake. It is the safe choice.
Dare to be big, go for it without going Gonzo, and make the hard decisions. Tell them what you are about, what you want to write, and let the merits of your pitch succeed or fail on those decisions. It will fail if you don’t make any decisions.
"Glittering generalities" reminds me of lots and lots of critique I'd give in poetry workshops. People would right all these lines and lines, but there wouldn't be a single concrete image in the whole thing. It was all vague, relative concepts like "love" or "sadness" or "despair." No metaphor at all, and how can you have a poem without that? What kind of love? How sad? Show me the despair!
So I see what's being explained here. It's one thing to say a group has "well-developed defense plans" for their lair. But give an example of that (magical traps and defenses, including but not limited to arcane lock on all doors and fire trap on entrances to the armory and storage areas) and you've given a clear picture rather than leaving it up to a GM to puzzle out.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
Thanks, Andrew. That makes sense.
It's how "Secrets Man Was Not Meant To Know" is often code for "Secrets The Author Also Has No Clue On." I suppose the death of Aroden is the exception that proves the rule?
Very true. And when you are writing a 300 page book (whether it be a novel or a game setting manual), you can have a couple of those rare instances (i.e. Aroden). But in 1400 words, you shouldn’t even have one, let alone several.
Great, thanks for all your definitions and discussion. This has actually helped me a great deal more than I expected it to!
Any terms that other people are curious about?
I have used "Glittering Generalities" when appropriate... I first heard it from my high school Journalism teacher. She used it to describe articles that had no specifics but lots of glossy ideas.
I lol when I read it in Neil's review. Mrs. Gast would either laugh or be appauled.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
Here's another term, not really used by the Judges this year (do not recall if they've ever used it).
KISS
or Keep It Simple Stupid
I've fallen on the wrong side of that the last two years, and I believe it was the major reason I failed to get into the top 32. Both times, I was told my professional presentation was good (although last year I had some italic descriptive text that got dinged pretty good), writing was good, and ideas were innovative.
But that my items fatal flaws were mechanics that went beyond their intended purpose, had balance issues, or whatever.
So the innovation was there, it was just misplaced on working too much with changing mechanics of things.
KISS might have put me in the top 32, and then you all would have gotten to see my Salamander organization.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
aka Jiggy
|
KISS might have put me in the top 32, and then you all would have gotten to see my Salamander organization.
Don't say anything else! I want to see it when you're a contestant next year! (If they do the same categories.) :D
BBEG is "Big Bad Evil Guy", right? I'm more used to just "Big Bad," thanks to TVtropes.
If there's any guideline for safe use of glittering generalities in the context of the organization writeups... it would be that glittering generalities can be good right at the top of the entry, but nowhere else. A couple nice, ambiguous phrases at the top can grab the reader's attention and imagination without bogging them down in the details. But then you need to fill in the details in the following paragraphs.
That first sentence is your hook. Add the best lure imagination can buy, and make sure it's nicely barbed to catch and keep whoever bites at the lure. Magnetize it and cover it with superglue if you can. Sometimes a glittering generality can do that. But then you need to follow up with hard data and nitty-gritty details to the extent you have space.
In the political example, assuming they had time for more than the 30-second sound byte... "I will restore the great awesomeness of our country!" is the glittering generality... and that's where the typical politician stops (or adds a couple more, equally glittering, slightly less general statements; "fixing the tax code", "fairness", "ice cream"). But we can't stop there. We need to get the details: "X%, Y%, Z% marginal rates starting at $W, $A, $B, $C deduction, no other deductions", "$X more spending on education, training, and safety nets", "one serving of ice cream a day per person, their choice of chocolate, vanilla, or strawberry, in a caramel-dripped waffle cone, delivered by teleporting psychic ninjas in neon blue outfits at 3:30 pm local time".
Star Voter Season 6
|
KISS might have put me in the top 32, and then you all would have gotten to see my Salamander organization.Don't say anything else! I want to see it when you're a contestant next year! (If they do the same categories.) :D
Hmm. I, for one, am not that worried about that possibility. Round 2 has been different every year. I don't think discussing a hypothetical Round 2 organization here (or in the "home edition" thread) poses much risk.
I intend to share mine for evaluation. On the off-chance I make the top 32 next year, and the even more remote chance that the round is for an organization again, I'll come up with something else. That's what Superstar is all about anyway, right?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
aka Jiggy
|
Hm, good point. I didn't follow the other years (didn't even know about RPG Superstar then), but I guess I should've realized Rounds 2+ would be different each time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To "get Neiled":
This is when you take 10 minutes to type out a thoughtful, thorough response to a topic and post it, only to discover that Neil was able to produce a wall of text immediately before your post. This wall of text says exactly what you did, only it's more detailed and eloquent.
Clark is the most common victim of this phenomenon. (We don't blame Neil for this. It's a force of nature.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil League of Evil (credit to Dr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog)
A group of antagonists who engage in villainy for its own sake, with no recognizable motivation or goal. Bonus points if they "revel/delight/exult in chaos/discord/destruction."
Gonzo Throttle (from some organization thread or another)
The internal device by which one adjusts one's gonzo level. Normally tops out at "full Boomer" in Pathfinder, but goes even higher in other games. When Kevin Siembieda wrote Rifts, he cranked his gonzo throttle up to "mega-Boomer", then strapped it in place with an ammo belt so he could wield two rail guns at once.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gonzo Throttle (from some organization thread or another)
The internal device by which one adjusts one's gonzo level. Normally tops out at "full Boomer" in Pathfinder, but goes even higher in other games. When Kevin Siembieda wrote Rifts, he cranked his gonzo throttle up to "mega-Boomer", then strapped it in place with an ammo belt so he could wield two rail guns at once.
Note that when China Miéville wrote for Pathfinder, he set it for "Clinton Miéville" which isn't nearly as high a level as "China Boomer." Then you'd have crab-men arriving in a saltwater pond that was shipped over by utter denial of reality which caused the massive city that existed there to be retroactively willed out of existence and replaced with ocean, all part of an ur-aboleth plot to realign existence with respect to the Dark Tapestry. The misplaced city, Nanghumothenon, has been reimagined on the Demiplane of Eldrytch-Left, where it and its inhabitants are kept in mathematical stasis and color-mined by the Sleeeen, screeching hagfish-men in league with the ur-aboleth.
Evil League of Evil (credit to Dr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog)
A group of antagonists who engage in villainy for its own sake, with no recognizable motivation or goal. Bonus points if they "revel/delight/exult in chaos/discord/destruction."
Goals
The medusas relish the chaos and humiliation they visit upon the pretentious society they can never belong to.
Close enough - Bonus points for me!
Hmm, we should make a Gonzo Scale. For science!
Help me out here.
.
.
.
0 - Ben Stein
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 - Joss Whedon
8 -
9 -
10 - Full-Boomer
11 - Mega-Boomer
Hmm, we should make a Gonzo Scale. For science!
Help me out here.
I'll take a shot:
0 - Ben Stein1 - George Washington (historical)
2 - Jay Leno
3 - King David
4 - The A-Team
5 - Fantastic Four (Kirby years)
6 - Joss Whedon
7 - George Washington (as portrayed here (nsfw))
8 - Doctor Who
9 - Gurren Lagann
10 - Full-Boomer
11 - Mega-Boomer
Shift X - World of Synnibarr
What, you thought that the gonzo throttle would only go to 11?
I formally approve the presence of Gurren Lagann on the scale, and request the inclusion of both Terry Pratchet and Mark Twain.
as does Piers Anthony
I love his early work, but really, his current stuff (read: Xanth series books 15+) probably only rates about a 4 or so on the gonzo scale, if that. I tried reading the books out of order at one point, and realized that so many of his books follow one same formula all the time.
Instead of his "normal" service to him, he sends them on some quest together.
boy and girl fall in love, realizing that the other's particular strength is the solution to their problem.
boy and girl use the power of their love to complete their quest, then retire together and get the stork to send them babies.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
as does Piers AnthonyI love his early work, but really, his current stuff (read: Xanth series books 15+) probably only rates about a 4 or so on the gonzo scale, if that. I tried reading the books out of order at one point, and realized that so many of his books follow one same formula all the time.
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, I don't read the Xanth novels anymore. I got tired after Man from Mundania, and that I think was 20 years ago. So its been a long time since I've read Xanth.
But Omnivore was probably one of my favorite books of his, and then of course the Incarnations series was fantastic (although the Devil and God ones were probably the weakest of the bunch).
And his Apprentice Adept series was fantastic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clark is the most common victim of this phenomenon.
Agreed. But at least I learn. Now I dont even bother posting until I see that Neil has. For instance, I've been reading the monster submissions. I'm just waiting till he posts to post my full critique. I always go through and read them and quickly post my initial gut reactions, but I then go back and edit them with my full review. But now I dont even do that until Neil has posted. I mean, why would you? I get "Neiled" all the time.
I never said getting Neiled was a bad thing. :p
(Using the word "victim" notwithstanding.)
... the Incarnations series was fantastic (although the Devil and God ones were probably the weakest of the bunch).
Concurred, and personally his Bio of a Space Tyrant is still one of my favorite sci-fi series to date.
Yeah, it was a prolitical commentary projected into space, but I still feel the story itself was awesome, and only a little of that is the space-bit. ;)